Ccd vs. Cmos

[Michael Bargeron]

I am new to all this technology, perhaps someone can clarify the pros/cons of each.
I am looking at purchase of either HMC40 OR HMC150, for travel and family use, but want high quality product for possible presentation for travel groups.
Why, for example, would Panasonic not put CCD's in the HMC40, is it cost?
Is there any circumstance when the CMOS is better than the CCD?
Any advice appreciated!

[Perrone Ford]

This is something of a religious discussion.

I'll steer clear of it except to say that both technologies have their merits, and both have very real and very significant drawbacks. You just need to choose what's best for you and go with that.

[Dan Carter]

I'd agree with Perrone. CCDs are often considered better in low-light, but what is your definition of low-light. The CMOS in the HMC40 are often considered better for sharpness, but how sharp is sharp to you.

I think, in the end, your skill and experience with whatever camera you choose will be the deciding factor. Heck, I've seen some great iPhone videos lately.

Good luck with your decision.

[Paulo Teixeira]

The advantages that the HMC40 has is that it's significantly sharper than the HMC150 if your shooting in broad daylight and it's obviously much more portable. It can almost pass as a consumer camera. That's my personal choice.

If you shooting in mostly places that doesn't have much lighting than the HMC150 would be the far better choice.

It's basically what Dan say except for the part about CCDs in general being better for low light. For example something like the Sony PMW-350 would kill the HMC150 in low light because the chips are much bigger.

[Michael Bargeron]

will the hmc40 have a picture with less vivid colors or less of anything that will be noticeable as compared to the same picture, in good light, from the hmc150?

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

This is something of a religious discussion.

I'll steer clear of it except to say that both technologies have their merits, and both have very real and very significant drawbacks. You just need to choose what's best for you and go with that.

You're right about that Perrone, but steering clear of it won't help answer the question - and that's what we're here for!
CMOS has 2 big flaws, both due to needing a rolling shutter, the first is that you can get blank bits of the picture if you're filming while someone fires a flashgun (problem for wedding guys), the other is that you get skew in moving subjects (so that the image bends to a greater of lesser degree depending on the camera when you pan or tilt).
CCD main problems are that cameras need to be bigger as they need bigger fans to cool them, and they are more expensive for the same spec.
Steve

[Chris Harding]

Being in the wedding industry I cannot live with rolling shutter issues so it's CCD's all the way (BTW: remember that the HMC150 has 1/3" chips and the HMC40 has 1/4")

Even though I'm a die-hard fan of CCD's the HMC40 has produced some excellent video on this forum and if I was looking for something non-industry oriented then the smaller form factor of the 40 is an advantage. You are unlikely to experience flash problems in general video and as long as you are aware of the skew factor (don't film picket fences from a moving vehicle or do whip pans!!) then the HMC40 (and the lower cost) will probably suit you better.

Chris

[Mark Von Lanken]

The biggest disadvantages of the HMC40 vs the HMC150 are low light abilities and rolling shutter during a camera flash.

A few of the HMC40s advantages over the HMC150 are sharper image when shooting in a lot of light, smaller size, still camera abilities, batteries last longer, and a cheaper price. The HMC40 also comes with Edius Neo. I don't think Edius Neo is included in the HMC150, but I could be wrong.

For travel and family videos, the HMC40 could be perfect. The still camera capability is a nice added feature that could really come in handy for you. As long as the footage is outdoors or adequately lit indoors, you can get great images for a presentation for travel groups.

[Bob Diaz]

What we have with CMOS vs. CCD is a trade-off decision.

CCD:
+ No problems with rolling shutter
- May show a vertical line when pointed at a very bright light source
- Limited as far a pixel resolution on small chips (1/3" and 1/4" can not do 1920x1080 at 60p)

CMOS:
+ No vertical line when pointed at a very bright light source
+ Can have 1920x1080 on small chips
- Rolling shutter causes problems with rapid whip pans
- Rolling shutter causes problems with partial bright exposure with flash photos

The link below shows cuts from frames that were shot with a CMOS image sensor. The top left image we see a vertical line that leans to do fast movement. The Right image shows a lean in the vertical lines due to a whip pan. The bottom left shows a bright bar in the image due to a flash photo taken.

VideoExamples :: Rollong Shutter picture by KQ6WQ - Photobucket

Had Panasonic chosen to go with CCD for the HMC40, the sensor resolution would have been limited to 960x540 with pixel offset. The amount of heat generated by CCD technology limits the chip from going to higher resolution. The lower resolution would limit the sharpness of the image, but would have helped in low light. Maybe about a 2 stop gain (more or less).

With CMOS, Panasonic could take the image sensor to the full 1920x1080 resolution. This gives the camera a really sharp image, but because the pixels are smaller, it results in worse low light performance.

Another advantage of CMOS over CCD is that CMOS uses less power; so the batteries run the camera longer.

One can make a case for either technology, it's just a matter of which trade-offs best fit your needs.


Bob Diaz

[Michael Bargeron]

Wow, great explanations from all.
Very helpful!

[Denny Lajeunesse]

Here's a video by panasonic explaining how to get around the limitations of CMOS in the HPX300


Go here and click at the HPX300 instructional video (bottom left). There is more to CMOS than just rolling shutter. I personally will avoid them till they get all these things ironed completely out.

"Working with 3MOS imagers means working with rolling shutters. Learn how to minimize the impact of skew while moving the camera. Flash Band Compensation is also covered."

Professional Digital Camcorders from Panasonic

[Robert M Wright]

It seems that CMOS has come a long way in the past few years. Used to be that noise was quite a problem in low light, with CMOS. I just got a Panasonic HMC40 recently, and the gain is noticeably cleaner than it is with a Canon XH-A1. I've shot footage at 12dB, with the HMC40, that is surprisingly clean (can approach being almost unnoticeable, depending on what you are shooting). 12dB with the XH-A1 looks radio-active by comparison. The A1 is a better camera in low-light conditions, but the difference is a heck of a lot less than I expected it would be, before I got the HMC40 and actually shot with it. I'm really impressed by what those itsy-bitsy chips can do. With ample lighting, the HMC40's recorded image quality clearly beats out the A1 (sharper and less compression artifacts). It would be interesting to compare the recorded footage, from an HMC40 and an EX1 (with both cameras properly set up), shot side-by-side in ideal lighting conditions. I bet they'd be awfully close.

About rolling shutter and flashes: Personally, I don't think rolling shutter is anywhere near as big a real-world viewing problem, with occasional camera flashes (and the like), as it's made out to be by many professional (and serious amateur) videographers and editors. The effect is just far and away more noticed by the well trained eye than it is by typical viewers. When a typical viewer watches video shot with CMOS (in real time), and there's a camera flash, more often than not, the typical viewer simply perceives a flash (nothing more and nothing less). For those of us who spend a heck of a lot of time (perhaps too much!) on the other end of cameras and editing video, of course we notice a CMOS rolling shutter flash (especially when looking at video frame by frame while editing!). We notice lots of things a typical viewer simply does not.

[Robert M Wright]

About shooting stills with the HMC40: I'm not impressed at all. I've only tried shooting a few stills with the HMC40, but they downright sucked. Perhaps I'm doing something way wrong, but from what I've seen thus far, my old 4 megapixel Sony pocket size point-and-shoot camera yields much better images. Heck, I even like the stills out a Canon HV20 better.

[Jeff Kellam]

Regardless of the CCD vs CMOS issues, for family and travel use, the HMC-40 wins hands down due to lower cost and smaller size and the low light sensitivity is acceptable for the intended purpose.

Disclaimer, I have the HMC-150, but not the HMC-40. Carrying essentially another suitcase for the HMC-150 is not cool for family travel.

[Bob Diaz]

Originally Posted by Robert M Wright

About shooting stills with the HMC40: I'm not impressed at all. I've only tried shooting a few stills with the HMC40, but they downright sucked. Perhaps I'm doing something way wrong, but from what I've seen thus far, my old 4 megapixel Sony pocket size point-and-shoot camera yields much better images. Heck, I even like the stills out a Canon HV20 better.

I was not impressed with the still image I saw from the HMC-40, but in all fairness, it was at the highest resolution (10MP). My guess is that by trying to push the resolution way beyond the native resolution of the image sensors, the image isn't very good.

As a lower resolution image, it would look good. The 1920x1080 frames from the 1080p video look good.


Bob Diaz